in practice - the association of sociopathy with religious dogma is inescapable. Maybe the problem is etymology. My ~ 1915 Ed. of the Webster's Unabridged features a sub-note describing 'the problem' (?)

Religion [was] not, as too often now, used as equivalent for godliness; it expressed the outer form and embodiment which the inward spirit of a true or false devotion assumed.

Methinks this "as too often now" may be better differentiated as religiosity, defined therein as,
Quality of being fervidly religious; intense religious feeling or sentiment. (emphasis mine)

However you slice it - recognition of any metaphysical concept as.. possessing validity, representing a dimension within All There Is or Might Be (?) - no less valid for its not being demonstrable:

Says *nothing* of itself - about the regard one has / does not have for other humans - and the laws created by these humans to protect themselves from each other.

Those we call Zealots (and lots of synonyms) go further than such a mere recognition; these place their allegiance and their behavior beyond *any* moderation by fellow humans:

--> not to 'god' per se [!?] but always and everywhere upon - their personal interpretation 'about' such a 'god', its ascribed umm "wishes, likes, dislikes, aims, quirks" -- and various other anthropomorphic ideas seemingly about.. "god's character" [talk about yer oxymorons / and the Infinite]

(We have a special word to describe such presumptuousness, hubris.)

So agreed: 'religion' as a sub-category of metaphysical thought - is no culprit. Adherence to one's own internal fantasy / translated into sociopathy next.. IS the culprit. Every time. (And such a mindset might well be a valid and practical target for assiduous stamping out, at all times and in all places - to whatever extent possible). It's certainly my aim.


My 3 Drachm\ufffd


A.